May 2008

28 May 2008

Join us for two exciting days of agile and agile leadership! 17-18 July in Seattle, Washington!

This summit provides the very latest conversations in agile. It will be an “unconference” and a “conference”. The first day will be think tank/open space sessions with the experts and in the second day, the experts will present to the entire group what findings and discoveries they made.

Our largest offering yet, 8 topics, two keynotes, and a panel! Attendees will collaborate with experts to find solutions and new directions for leaders in the agile space. Topics and experts include:

Key note speeches fromLisa Haneberg,Author of several books including "High Impact Middle Management", "Focus Like a Laser Beam" and "Two Weeks to a Breakthrough",John Yuzdepski,Chief Marketing Officer at TestQuest, former VP & GM at Openwave and prior to that VP & GM of Sprintpcs.com- a CIO panel - featuring leaders from firms around Seattle, participants to be confirmed, currently confirmed: Dale Christian, CIO of Avanade - Think Tank / Open Space Sessions led by recognized leaders in the agile field, including...

26 May 2008

Corporate culture is never unified, no matter how small the organization. There are strata of culture and culture can shift from moment to moment based on context. Even in my companies - which have less than 10 employees each - the culture changes based on the circumstances.

I was reading Andrew Filev's Project Management 2.0 Blog this morning and was thoroughly enjoying it. He was both praising and providing critique towards Leisa Reichelt's Collaborative Project Management work.

Andrew says:

Leisa seems to overlook the core element of the new-generation project management – collaboration. “Social” is the main word here. Projects now tend to be managed with the help of the wisdom of the many.

This is very true. New project management techniques are very social and collaborative. However, I wouldn't say "now tend to be" because this implies that our field of agile project management is the norm or that its pervasive throughout organizations.

If only it were so.

Most organizations today have some lean, some agile and a lot of traditional management thinking. Cost accounting, business accounting, expense rules, HR policies, and information flows are far from agile in all but a statistically insignificant number of companies.

Combine this with the fact that most people are either trained in traditional hierarchical management or (more often the case) not trained as managers at all - and we get multiple subcultures spread across an organization.

If you have a team to manage and that team is fairly isolated, you can build a good collaborative inner structure. But your team is still part of the rest of the company. That means you have to build an agile-to-hierarchic interface to relate what you are doing in terms the rest of the organization can process.

That interface comes with overhead. That interface requires internal policies to map to (at least to an extent) external policies. Your collaborative environment needs to make sense to the command and control people who give you work and funding.

Workflow then becomes the next issue. How do you maintain an reasonable level of work-in-process (traditional management tends to dump work on you)?

How do you communicate value back up the external chain-of-command?

One sad fact about most implementations of collaborative management is that they don't respect the fact that the rest of the company exists. Value is created within the team that has no mechanism to be communicated up the chain. That value is then undervalued at funding time. It is squandered.

The team cannot find the words to communicate value. The creation of the team's collaborative processes didn't include robust enough reporting mechanisms to achieve this communication.

Meanwhile, an underperforming waterfall team on the next floor has received more funding because their culture more directly maps to the rest of the org.

Collaborative tools and processes can certainly help teams perform better. We've seen group performance increases that have truly been stunning with no change in staff. But in order for the change to be sustainable and in order for the organization to understand the value - other cultures than the teams must be accounted for.

When this happens, something wonderful happens. The change isn't threatening to the organization, the benefits are noted, they spread virally, and true systemic change can occur.

25 May 2008

Power can be seen in two lights, coercive and connective. Coercive power is power based on control through a center or a set of connected centers. Connective power is power gained through linking objects of need to objects of fulfillment.

For many years, I was an urban planner - or at least an extension of one. I worked for government agencies and for traditional consulting engineering companies. While I learned a lot from those experiences and did good work, I was never fully at peace.

One central reason was that I valued connective power and showed disdain for coercive power. I was often accused of "going around" people to get things done. Did things get done? Yes. So completing an action of benefit to the organization was much less preferable than going through the established lines of communication in the organization.

In other words, I did not respect the established coercive power structure.*

Now, the catch, all of my orgs, government or otherwise, considered themselves relatively flat. Compared to their peers, they may well have been, but the weren't flat, they weren't rigid hierarchies either. They were a mish mash of policies that both rewarded and punished non-coercive action.

What is Coercive Power?

In a traditional hierarchy, and in most relationships that involve rank, coercive power hinges on information gates.

Here we have the standard org chart. A world-view so complete that every flowcharting tool in the world covers it. The org chart immediately highlights the information gates in the organization.

Mr. Slate has three direct reports (for simplicity), who also each have three direct reports. (In organizations we are currently working with, there are some people who have over 100 direct reports).

In the official world of Org Charts, any information created by any of the proles needs to filter up through the human PM interface, to Mr. Slate who will then communicate it to the Head Cheese or to the other C-Level people. If the C-level people find it necessary, they will communicate it down to their direct reports and so on.

Coercive power flows through this system by controlling what information goes to whom and when. If Mr. Slate has dozens of direct reports and is always flying around the world looking for more purchasers of the company's rocks, this obviously hampers the flow of communication even more.

People then become highly dependent on Mr. Slate and his availability. A massive set of transaction costs then grow around Mr. Slate. Problems come up and Mr. Slate is an obvious bottleneck.

But the organization is not built to support any other types of information flow. Therefore, when problems arise, there is no elegant fix for them.

To cope with this, Mr. Slate, rather than figuring out ways to re-route information (therein undermining the corporate structure and taking away his granted power-source), resorts to ways to get information to him more "efficiently". And, there are your forms.

So Fred, Barney and Hud are buried in forms designed to get Mr. Slate the information he needs to manage effectively. These forms have zero value for Fred and the middle managers and provide an incomplete view to Mr. Slate. No one has the ability to protest because Mr. Slate is using his positional (coercive) power to enforce the decisions.

Mr. Slate then ends up in meetings with the C-level staff and the other C-level people see how organized he is. Forms just look organized. Soon the forms move virally throughout the org as a way of standardizing information provided to the C-level staff.

Coercive power is borne from hierarchical structures. It gives rise to the other negative elements of coercive power (bullying, opaque management decisions, ladder-climbing, etc.). In the end, it becomes apparent that these are symptoms of information hoarding and information bottlenecks.

Connective Power

"In a Hierarchy almost everyone is critical, since the loss of any one person's connection disrupts communication to everyone connected through that person." - Clay Shirky "Here Comes Everybody."

The funny thing about it is, if Fred Flinstone finally wises up and goes off to open his own company with Mr. Slate, the org doesn't fall apart. How can this be so? Both Fred and Mr. Slate kept that place going! If they were truly that operationally important in the company would experience paroxysms and an utter information meltdown.

Oddly, a few things might happen. First off, the paperwork would falter. Which would provide the illusion of a catastrophe. But work would still get done.

Why? Because the org never needed the paperwork in the first place. What it needed was Lucy Magilicuddy.

Connective Power

As the red lines overlaid on to the org chart clumsily show, Lucy is the person in Amalgamated Entertainment that knows what's going on. Even before we knew what social networking was, we said these people were connected.

So in Amalgamated Entertainment, if you want something to get done, you go to Lucy. That's why everybody loves her.

Lucy has connective power. She can't force anyone to do anything. The organization gives her zero coercive power, and if she tries to use coercive power - her relative power will diminish.

What Lucy can do, is give you office intelligence, connect you with other people and facilitate progress. She does this without forms, without positional power and often without official acknowledgement.

The org chart shows positional power, the CEO is at the top and only recognized communications channels are shown. Lucy's overlay shows us that actual communication throughout the organization is anything but the org chart. If anything, the org chart merely shows trails of official blame and overhead.

Here we see a social networking diagram of Amalgamated Entertainment that highlights Lucy's Connective Power. No one directly reports to Lucy in the org chart, yet she has 13 connections throughout the organization. She hears, directly from people's mouths, what is happening in every team throughout the org.

Compare her to the CEO who has 5 direct connections. The CEO's information is highly filtered through official channels. The line-noise and transaction costs of these communications channels directly impact the quality of information the CEO receives. Note also, that he is getting his information directly from the least informed people in the org.

Fred F., by contrast, also has unofficial lines of communication throughout the organization. His 9 lines of communication are second only to Lucy's. And his direct connection to Lucy fills in a lot of the gaps.

Hud R. is comfortable in his positional power and simply has not taken the time to form relationships throughout the company. Fred and Hud share the same coercive Power, but Fred enjoys a much higher degree of connective power.

What I've Found

I've found that even in the most coercive environments, connective networks are alive and well. In the worst cases, they are abolished upon discovery.

Coercive environments tend to be successful when led by people who personify the best possible coercion. These tend to be narcissistic personality types who can simultaneously get people to perform under them and play the power games necessary to succeed and move up the ladder. They are spawn-at-all-cost types.

The problem is that these types of people use positional power to get their desires fulfilled. Staff below them say "yes boss" and perform the proscribed tasks, but those tasks have no context or relevance. "Yes, I'll fill out the form", "Yes, I'll do this mundane task."

This gets the job done in the short term, but leaves residue in the works of the corporate machine. People want to leave the organization, they are demoralized. At best, they want to work their way up the ladder more than anything else. Their actions, while often benefiting the company, usually benefit their own aspirations.

Connective environments under coercive environments are are most often coping mechanisms. "I was given this task, but policies won't let me complete it. Can you help me?" Or "I was given this task and I know I'm not supposed to speak to anyone without approval, can you meet me after work and talk about how you did something similar?" In both cases, the connective environment was created to specifically thwart organizational policy in order to achieve an organizational goal.

Intentional connective environments tend to be teamwork and goal focused. Rewards are not trickle-down, but awarded based on production. Staff is allowed to actually do a good job, see the benefits of work well done, and share in rewards. They are also self-perpetuating. The nature of social networks is that connections are rewarded.

A simplistic way of looking at this is: the more connections, the easier information flows. Connective environments rely on people with connective power to filter needs vs. capabilities and make the appropriate connections. They rely on the functional Lucys over the administrative Slates.

Where are your org's Lucys and how are they helping you around your Slates? How are those relationships dysfunctional? What can be done to acknowledge and strengthen them?

---

*Having said that, I'm not going to duck away from the fact that I was also young and impulsive and tended to let my ideas get ahead of my or the org's ability to handle them.

20 May 2008

It took a little while to finalize, but Modus Cooperandi and the French-owned global tech consultancy, Valtech, have signed a strategic partnership. We will be enhancing their service offering with our organizational change management consulting. David Anderson, one of the Modus Partners will also take the role as Chief Process Scientist for Valtech.

Valtech's On-Demand software services are highly agile and integrate very well with the techniques we employ in our engagements.

We have been working closely with Valtech on a number of contracts already, this agreement makes our relationship official.

We are looking forward to a long and fruitful relationship with our new partners.

13 May 2008

I have mentioned this before, but the conference seems to be finalized now. Come think with some excellent people and me in Leicester, UK in June. I'll be talking about practical applications of Social Media and leading a workshop on ways to deal with negative reviews or mentions in Social Media.

Here's the official word:

The programme for the NLab Social Networks Conference at De Montfort University, Leicester, is shaping up nicely! See http://www.nlabnetworks.comDay 1, Thursday 19 June will focus on Social Networks and Innovation, including presentations by Microsoft evangelist Steve Clayton, NESTA's Roland Harwood, Swarmteams' Ken Thompson and Sleepydog's Toby Moores, plus Shani Lee, Vijay Riyait and Sue Thomas. Networking continues into the evening with the Conference Dinner at the Leicester Ramada Hotel.

Day 2, Friday 20 June will concentrate on Work and Money, kicking off with Andrea Saveri reporting on new research from Palo Alto (are *you* an amplified individual?), followed by the launch of a new report by Chris Meade on ways to make a digital living, and a challenge from Jim Benson to make some money.

On both days there will also be Workshops including:

Dealing with the Negative: What to Do When Social Media Bites You (Jim Benson)

How Can Business Benefit Be Derived From Social Networking? (Stephen Peak)

Can we be familiar strangers? Rethinking the language of customer relationships through social networks (David James Ross)

Search Engine Optimisation and Social Networking (Angie Stokes)

A Model for Sustainable Community-Based Networks: From the Cradle to the Grave (Helen Whitehead)

plus more to comeFor full info see http://nlabnetworks.typepad.com/nlab_social_networks_conf/workshops.htmlConference Fees * £125 inc VAT Full Price (2 days + conference dinner on Thursday evening) * £105 inc VAT (2 days only, no concessions) * £65 inc VAT (1 day only, no concessions) * £95 inc VAT Concession* (2 days + conference dinner on Thursday evening)*Concessionary rates are for students, DMU staff, senior citizens and those in receipt of income-related benefits. Proof of status is required. If you are in any doubt regarding your eligibility, please email dmccc@dmu.ac.ukFind out more and register online at http://www.nlabnetworks.comHope to see you there!

06 May 2008

I was sitting at my desk when an IM box appears. It's Nancy White saying "What is Collaboration?"

[4/24/2008 2:55:14 PM] Nancy White says: What is your distinction between cooperation and collaboration>=?Jim Benson says: Cooperation costs $125 an hour. Collaboration costs $350 an hour.Nancy White says: Funny!Nancy White says: Seriously, what distinction would you makeNancy White says: And can I quote you on your earlier def! LOLNancy White says: Actually, Can Shawn Callahan quote you on his blogJim Benson says: Cooperation is less specific. Cooperation can be the actions, intentional or otherwise, between two or more entities towards the realization of a common state.Nancy White says: That jives with my understanding tooNancy White says: Can we quote that too! ;)Jim Benson says: Collaboration is a willful act. Collaboration is a movement toward a predetermined state by one or more entities usually by the execution of specific tasks.

What's interesting was we started out cooperating ... Nancy was asking me questions and as a friend of hers I was answering (after requisite silliness). We had (or at least I had) no end goal in mind other than cooperating with a random question asked by a woman who ... often asks questions.

Then we started talking, and Shaun shows up from Australia. And suddenly we are a little ad-hoc think tank arguing the esoterics of two words that many people find synonymous.

Then, it became collaboration. We were engaged in a willful act in a group aimed at a specific goal. We were collaborating at achieving a common understanding of what the differences between cooperating and collaborating were.

Or that's my definition set anyway. Look at Shaun's post to see other ideas.